Lijia Yu et al., “Grammar of Protein Domain Architectures,” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, USA 116, no. 9 (February 26, 2019): 3636–45, doi:10.1073/pnas.1814684116.
No Meerkat. That genomes possess something akin to grammar does not entail that the genome is similar to digital information.
That genomes bear some similarity to natural language is neither surprising, nor remotely supportive of a designer – as a key attribute of a natural language is that it is one that evolved naturally (as opposed to an artificially created, ‘designed’ language like Esperanto).
3 Likes
Picking up where I left off before replying to newer comments.
Let me try to unpack this. The first experiment, paraphrased:
… [The] observer has to first test and determine whether or not life can be produced within that condition solely by allowing the natural conditions or processes to occur without interference.
I replaced “specified complexity” carries unnecessary baggage; producing life is more than enough. – I’m not sure this is falsifiable. In theory an infinite number of biochemists could test all possible conditions, but in practice that can’t be done. In other context a hypothesis Y might not be testable but is implied by X which IS testable. I don’t see a necessary implication here. I’ll think about it tho.
However, if just one of those experiments succeeds then we are done. There is no need for the second experiment to confirm design.
I don’t think this is any clearer. It feels like a moving of goal posts to “quantum mind”, which is equally undefined. Does a “designer existing by necessity” imply assuming the conclusion? Testable hypotheses can almost always be stated in a simple sentence (definition may be much longer). I don’t see this here.
The author has a point, but is missing another. Those detailed lab experiments are design to tease out how just particular reaction happen. It is much harder to discern cause and effect in observational studies. Carefully designed experiments are how we establish basic science.
I think you misunderstood me; I meant that not all evidence is statistical in nature.
1 Like
Methodological naturalism requires material evidence. It is possible to pose hypotheses about supernatural cause, but still requires material evidence. In the unlikely even that science ever manages to quantify God, then I predict a lot of theologians will be highly disappointed. 
I hate to bear bad news, but chemistry is physics, including biochemistry.
BUT, you might be interested in Constructor Theory. 
A key point here: you haven’t claimed otherwise. Defining limits is essential to testable hypotheses. This is one of the failings of ID trying to be science.
2 Likes
Hubert P. Yockey:
“It is important to understand that we are not reasoning by analogy. The sequence hypothesis [that the exact order of symbols records the information] applies directly to the protein and the genetic text as well as to written language and therefore the treatment is mathematically identical.”
Self Organization Origin of Life Scenarios and Information Theory, Journal of Theoretical Biology , Vol. 91 (1):16
Correct me if I am wrong but the example you gave as to why its not testable involves verifiability NOT falsifiability. As you know, NO theory can truly be verified in that manner, which is why falsifiability is considered the demarcation line for science instead.
Wikipedia:
“a theory is falsifiable (or refutable ) if it is contradicted by possible observations —i.e., by any observations that can be described in the language of the theory, which must have a conventional empirical interpretation.[A] Thus the theory must be about scientific evidence and it must prohibit some (but not all) possible observations. For example, the statement “All swans are white” is falsifiable because “Here is a black swan” contradicts it.”
An intelligent designer must exists in all possible natural conditions to develop life. This is falsifiable because “Here is an experiment showing life evolved naturally without interference” would contradict it. How can you say this is still unfalsifiable despite it being formulated in almost the exact same way that Karl Popper has suggested?
A quantum mind would simply be digital information and consciousness, which combined to make a human mind. Necessity would be a mind that affects matter and energy without a human body. For a more precise scientific definition of a mind, I would just refer you to Roger Penrose and Stuart Hammerhoff’s article:
Hameroff, Stuart; Penrose, Roger (2014). “Consciousness in the universe”. Physics of Life Reviews . 11 (1): 39–78. Bibcode:2014PhLRv…11…39H. doi:10.1016/j.plrev.2013.08.002. PMID 24070914.
Right, but that is not what I meant. I was talking about in terms of using the hypothesis to explain the effects within biochemistry or biological settings from those initial experiments and observations I laid out before rather than non-biological settings.
Correct, but you have to start somewhere and ,don’t forget, I am proposing a different ID theory. In fact, I just made changes to my ID theory from a different topic of discussion I created. I saw you comment on already.
I beg to differ. As I said before, my overall argument for God is NOT suggesting the human mind exists outside of space and time in the context of substance dualism, but that one substance or one reality exists. Instead of the mind/information existing as or in the brain/matter via materialism, it is the brain/matter that exists within the mind/information as an information construct. In other words, brain/matter is still real but not “Objectively” real where matter/brain and its effects are only real because the mind/information makes it real. Here, let me show you an example of what I mean…
According to John chapter 1:
"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was with God in the beginning. Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made. “…The Word became flesh and made His dwelling among us. We have seen His glory, the glory of the one and only Son from the Father, full of grace and truth.”
The Greek meaning for “the Word” mentioned in John 1:1-3 is “something said; by implication, a topic, also reasoning or motive; by extension, a COMPUTATION; specially, the Divine Expression.” [emphasis added]
In other words, God is Digital information in the form of logical absolutes and mathematical language. This is where the quantum aspect of the human mind is relevant here since it also digital information in the form of computation.
So if you are saying digital information is supernatural and quantum physics does not involve this, then you would be wrong.
Consider your hypothesis …
… and your test …
If the observer can create life, or near enough to it then the designer isn’t necessary, BUT it doesn’t falsify the existence of the designer OR the designers previous creations (if any).
THIS is wrong, or at least it only falsifies the necessity of the designer. The existence of the designer cannot be falsified this way.
The existence of a divine or quantum mind is not dependent on what human biochemists can or cannot replicate.
Not following your thoughts here, but I’ll give that article a read.
A suggestion: Simplify. Tear your idea down to the simplest statement possible. My experience with disagreement in discussions of research hypotheses is that sometime people are asking the wrong question.
That is clearly NOT what I wrote. If you think you have information to test the existence of God, then that’s what you ought to be testing. You can ditch the biochemistry - you don’t need it.
1 Like
In regards to the latter, Why couldn’t we just say “we don’t know yet whether this designer created and sustains the universe as well but we will figure that out later”?
In regards to the former, Not completely, but it falsifies the theory and that’s what’s important. Instead, it would just require a reformulation of the theory to account for existing evidence.
Necessity is an intrinsic attribute of the God’s nature. So I don’t get what you mean here. Falsifying the necessity of God is falsifying God completely.
Correct, but God would be dependent or bound by his nature, which makes it a testable hypothesis
I just did this recently in a different topic
What do you mean by this? can you elaborate for me?
Not nearly enough…
1 Like
Saying “We don’t know yet” is dodging the very question your are trying to answer. It’s your question, you would like it to be a testable hypothesis, but lack of falsifiability is preventing that. I warned you this wasn’t easy!
A testable hypothesis asks a simple question, which may be part of a theory. This question isn’t useful because the answer can never be evidence against it. It’s not testable, so it doesn’t tell us much about the theory, except that something leading to the framing of the question isn’t right.
Careful! Remember we want a way to falsify your hypothesis. Falsifying God is something else entirely. 
If God is by definition “necessary”, that might put the kibosh on testability too, depending on how you mean it.
??? Not sure I understood you correctly - Begging the question of the nature of God doesn’t make anything testable - but surely that’s not what you meant?
“Digital” information isn’t some magical property, it’s just an aspect of how we measure, record, and transfer information. Testing what human biochemists can or cannot do isn’t going to give you information relevant to quantum minds without a body.
I haven’t had much time for that other thread. I’ll catch up later if I can.
3 Likes
Ah, I think I see your point now. Then, all I need to do is change the question in a way that makes it more falsifiable. How about this instead…
What is the primary cause of evolution? Evolution by Natural Selection or Divine Intelligence
The other topic I created deals with this very question.
Correct and ,in this instance, I mean it in regards to life not the universe, which probably means I asked the wrong question.
I don’t want to be critical of a good effort, but if you think this through I think you will see the problem.
You might be surprised how often asking the wrong question occurs in actual discussions of research hypotheses. Some of the best discussions are a sort of professional argument about the question, and help to better define the problem in useful ways.
I’ll check in over there.
1 Like
I would say that virtually all of the best discussions are of that nature. Pseudoscientists like to falsely portray scientific discussions as debates that are won or lost by participants.
3 Likes
I think @Meerkat_SK5 is sincere, and he shows signs of understanding. I don’t think I’m going to change his beliefs (nor do I want to), but we might at least understand each other. Criticize with kindness!
I agree, and I am being kind in that I have not necessarily included Meerkat in the group “pseudoscientists.” It’s up to him/her.
2 Likes
This topic was automatically closed 7 days after the last reply. New replies are no longer allowed.